Opposing Views Of Jan Narveson And Peter Singer

To do good or to do justice? The question in me arises after learning about Jan Narveson and Peter Singer’s opposing views when it comes to feeding the hungry. In a nutshell, Peter Singer believes we have an obligation to give to charity, and Jan Narveson completely disagrees. Both have very distinctive views, Jan Narveson being a libertarian and Peter Singer being a utilitarian, making it hard to support one more than the other. As you read my essay, you will learn about Jan Narveson and Peter Singer’s different point of views when it comes to the universal issue of feeding the hungry, and how they can become conflicting. Jan Narveson is a libertarian who made the distinction between justice and charity, outweighing the act of justice

Bob does not know the little boy nor does he have any relation to him. Bob saves the Bugatti, causing a moral debate on whether or not it was immoral to save the car instead of the child. Narveson argues that Bob did not do anything wrong, and that he didn’t have a moral obligation to save the child because he didn’t know him. In brief terms, he makes the point that he worked hard for that car and he saved up his whole life for it, and he didn’t have to give up what he worked hard for over helping a less fortunate stranger because it was not something he morally owed to the child. His argument clearly ties back to his libertarian views, where he said we did not have an obligation to help charity unless it’s an act of justice. Again, Narveson isn’t saying you shouldn’t save the kid, he’s simply saying we don’t have an obligation to do so. He considers acts towards charity supererogatory. I do however agree with Narveson, I don’t think Bob is a bad person for picking his hard work over the

Although Bob did not know the child, Singer argues that the right thing to do was save his life because his life matters more than the material things, and in Singer’s eyes we don’t need material things as long as we have enough to live. Like mentioned above, Singer said if it’s in our hands and power to prevent something bad from happening to a person (like saving the kid from dying) then we ought to do it, unless the circumstances include sacrificing something of moral significance. Singer’s place in the Bob case all ties back to his extreme utilitarian views on life and you catch a glimpse of how selfless he is. Although Bob spent his life savings on this car and was going to live a couple years of his life struggling and in poverty, with obviously no car, Singer still believes he should’ve saved the little boy. He believes it is immoral for not helping the people who need